Dr. Seuss is one of my all time favorite authors. My favorite Dr. Seuss book in childhood was, One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. I think can still recite the entire book from memory. In the beginning and the end there was a little guy that said, "From here to there, from there to here, funny things are everywhere." On each page, there are snippets of wisdom about diversity and ethics. And of course, just plain nonsense. The format that Dr. Seuss uses to essentially teach ethical philosophy to children, is appealing and fun.
One Fish, Two Fish is my favorite book, if you were a Dr. Seuss book, which one would you be? Find out here.
Does Dr. Seuss have a philosophy? Are they just silly stories for kids learning how to read? If there is a philosophy behind the stories, then what is it? What do kids think about it? What would the philosophers views be on Dr. Seuss?
We are going to explore a few of Dr. Seuss' books and discover what Dr. Seuss' moral philosophy is.
The exploration will begin with.....
The Cat in the Hat is the story of two children who are home alone on a rainy, cold day. They are sitting and doing nothing, except looking out the window at the rain falling. Then all of a sudden, the Cat in the Hat appears at their door. The cat says:
Let's listen to the Cat in the Hat Rap. It has the entire Cat in the Hat story:
The moral dilemma in the story is, should the children have the cat in the house while the mother is out? And further, should they tell their mother what they did during the day? In the story, the Cat in the Hat does clean up his monstrous mess that he leaves. However, it raises the question, does the ends justify the means?
The fish represents the moral conscious. It says, "No, he should not be here when your mother is out!" The Cat argues and says that it's "Fun to have fun but you have to know how."
I think that Dr. Seuss' position is that the children SHOULD tell their mother, judging from the way SHOULD is capitalized in the story book. The children have what looks to be guilty little looks on their faces on the last page of the book. I believe that the story itself lets children make up their own minds about the difference between what is right and how they ultimately act. I asked my nine year old what his thoughts were on the story and this is what he said:
I also asked my 11 year old and this is what he has to say about it:
Philosopher's Opinions...
Bentham:
Number of people/cats happy
Number of people/fish unhappy
2 kids + 1 cat = 3
1 Fish
Bentham would say that it is okay for the kids not to tell their mother what happened. If the kids told their mother, then the table would look like this:
Number of people/cats happy
Number of people/fish/cats unhappy
0
2 kids+1cat+1 fish+1 mother
I think that Bentham would leave the fish as unhappy because it wouldn't necessarily cause happiness in the fish to tell the mother. But, it would cause him unhappiness (because of his guilt over his 'sin of omission') if he doesn't tell the truth.
Kant: Since it wouldn't be prudent to will that every child lies to their mother, regardless of the situation, then Kant would have to take the position that the the Fish is right. Kant's philosophy doesn't take into consideration different circumstances. Kant would probably consider it a categorical imperative that young children do not let large talking cats who throw Fish around, break plates and fly kites in the house with two things that don't have names, but numbers-in the house when the mother is not home. The children's decision to let the Cat in the Hat come into the house when it was against the rules, would go against reason. If morality is determined by motive, then what is the Cat's motive? It seems to be: fun. Although it could be argued that the Cat may have ulterior motives, let us simply say that his motive is to bring some fun into the lives of two children who were bored on a rainy day. The motive is innocent enough, however, at who's expense is this fun being had? Is it against the rules for the Cat to be there? Are the children now faced with the question of whether or not to lie to their mother? Although the motive itself can be okay, the actions themselves have consequences. So, is it possible that according to Kant, is the Cat is acting morally because his motive is pure? On the other hand, the Cat's actions could be irrelevant because he is,
well...a Cat. It is the children who have acted immorally by breaking the hypothetical categorical imperative stated in the beginning of this paragraph.
Plato: I think that Plato would have considered The Cat a sophist. Since the Cat did clean up his mess and the children did have fun, the cat comes out "on top" and the Fish who was morally correct although he had the unpopular view is looked upon as a "stick in the mud." I am not sure where Thing 1 and Thing 2 fit into anything- except it is safe to say they are certainly not Platonic Forms. The fish was morally correct as he voiced his opinion of reason.
Aristotle: Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean would say that the Cat in the Hat was on the excessive side. and therefore not really happy. The Doctrine of the Mean states that there are virtues and vices for each sphere of action or being. For example, if the sphere of action or being is fear and confidence. On one side of the spectrum is rashness; (vice) and the other side is cowardice. (vice) Aristotle calls the middle ground the mean, the virtue. In this example the virtue is courage. According to Aristotle, in order to achieve supreme good, we must act rationally in accordance with the virtues. The vices on both sides are either excesses or deficiencies of the virtue. The Cat is clearly acting in excess with respect to Self-Expression, Social Conduct, and Honor and Dishonor (major). The Cat shows a deficiency in Shame and Indignation. (with respect to his dealings with the Fish, ie. the game he calls 'Up Up Up with the Fish')
Dr. Seuss is one of my all time favorite authors. My favorite Dr. Seuss book in childhood was, One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. I think can still recite the entire book from memory. In the beginning and the end there was a little guy that said, "From here to there, from there to here, funny things are everywhere." On each page, there are snippets of wisdom about diversity and ethics. And of course, just plain nonsense. The format that Dr. Seuss uses to essentially teach ethical philosophy to children, is appealing and fun.
One Fish, Two Fish is my favorite book, if you were a Dr. Seuss book, which one would you be? Find out here.
Does Dr. Seuss have a philosophy? Are they just silly stories for kids learning how to read? If there is a philosophy behind the stories, then what is it? What do kids think about it? What would the philosophers views be on Dr. Seuss?
We are going to explore a few of Dr. Seuss' books and discover what Dr. Seuss' moral philosophy is.
The exploration will begin with.....
The Cat in the Hat is the story of two children who are home alone on a rainy, cold day. They are sitting and doing nothing, except looking out the window at the rain falling. Then all of a sudden, the Cat in the Hat appears at their door. The cat says:
The moral dilemma in the story is, should the children have the cat in the house while the mother is out? And further, should they tell their mother what they did during the day?
In the story, the Cat in the Hat does clean up his monstrous mess that he leaves. However, it raises the question, does the ends justify the means?
The fish represents the moral conscious. It says, "No, he should not be here when your mother is out!" The Cat argues and says that it's "Fun to have fun but you have to know how."
I think that Dr. Seuss' position is that the children SHOULD tell their mother, judging from the way SHOULD is capitalized in the story book. The children have what looks to be guilty little looks on their faces on the last page of the book.
I believe that the story itself lets children make up their own minds about the difference between what is right and how they ultimately act.
I asked my nine year old what his thoughts were on the story and this is what he said:
I also asked my 11 year old and this is what he has to say about it:
Philosopher's Opinions...
Bentham:
I think that Bentham would leave the fish as unhappy because it wouldn't necessarily cause happiness in the fish to tell the mother. But, it would cause him unhappiness (because of his guilt over his 'sin of omission') if he doesn't tell the truth.
Kant:
Since it wouldn't be prudent to will that every child lies to their mother, regardless of the situation, then Kant would have to take the position that the the Fish is right. Kant's philosophy doesn't take into consideration different circumstances. Kant would probably consider it a categorical imperative that young children do not let large talking cats who throw Fish around, break plates and fly kites in the house with two things that don't have names, but numbers-in the house when the mother is not home. The children's decision to let the Cat in the Hat come into the house when it was against the rules, would go against reason. If morality is determined by motive, then what is the Cat's motive? It seems to be: fun. Although it could be argued that the Cat may have ulterior motives, let us simply say that his motive is to bring some fun into the lives of two children who were bored on a rainy day. The motive is innocent enough, however, at who's expense is this fun being had? Is it against the rules for the Cat to be there? Are the children now faced with the question of whether or not to lie to their mother? Although the motive itself can be okay, the actions themselves have consequences. So, is it possible that according to Kant, is the Cat is acting morally because his motive is pure? On the other hand, the Cat's actions could be irrelevant because he is,
well...a Cat. It is the children who have acted immorally by breaking the hypothetical categorical imperative stated in the beginning of this paragraph.
Plato:
I think that Plato would have considered The Cat a sophist. Since the Cat did clean up his mess and the children did have fun, the cat comes out "on top" and the Fish who was morally correct although he had the unpopular view is looked upon as a "stick in the mud." I am not sure where Thing 1 and Thing 2 fit into anything- except it is safe to say they are certainly not Platonic Forms. The fish was morally correct as he voiced his opinion of reason.
Aristotle:
Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean would say that the Cat in the Hat was on the excessive side. and therefore not really happy. The Doctrine of the Mean states that there are virtues and vices for each sphere of action or being. For example, if the sphere of action or being is fear and confidence. On one side of the spectrum is rashness; (vice) and the other side is cowardice. (vice) Aristotle calls the middle ground the mean, the virtue. In this example the virtue is courage. According to Aristotle, in order to achieve supreme good, we must act rationally in accordance with the virtues. The vices on both sides are either excesses or deficiencies of the virtue. The Cat is clearly acting in excess with respect to Self-Expression, Social Conduct, and Honor and Dishonor (major). The Cat shows a deficiency in Shame and Indignation. (with respect to his dealings with the Fish, ie. the game he calls 'Up Up Up with the Fish')
So